Re: QCLSRC, QRPGSRC, etc... best practice?

I am having to rethink an old habit and realizing times change, perhaps
I should, too?

Very commendable if you ask me.

Absolutely. I think we should all revisit our habits and opinions
every so often.

If I could start over, I'd have one source PF for each object type, so
FILSRC
PGMSRC
SRVPGMSRC
PROTOSRC
BNDSRC
... you get the idea.

The basic concept is that since IBM i doesn't allow two programs in a
library to have the same name (not even CLP and RPG), or two files
(not even DSPF and PF), I need separate source files for these object
types as long as I want to have the source member named the same as
the object.

This is a great observation. It speaks to the idea of namespaces,
which I didn't consciously realize was A Thing until I started to be
exposed to more languages and more operating systems.

But it absolutely makes a ton of sense to align your source member
namespaces (which would be source physical files in this case) to the
operating system's object namespaces. Because no matter what your own
personal, team, project, or company naming conventions are, you can't
get around the operating system's namespaces.

Something to ponder; I don't really know the bestie best way to use
the IFS yet. But it fits right in to your very useful thread.

I agree this is a nice thread.

I came to the AS/400 from DOS, Windows, and Unix, and one of the most
fundamental things those other systems had in common was a treelike
file system with arbitrary levels of nesting (i.e., a file system like
IFS). QSYS seemed almost unbearably constraining for my first few
months on the platform. (It also took me a while to understand that
QSYS was a library, yet it contained all the other libraries.)

Because of the vastly greater freedom you have in the IFS, there might
not be a "bestie best" way to use it. And even if there is, there are
surely many other ways which are already much better than good enough.

John Y.